Effort to Eliminate Animal Cosmetic Testing

Animal right activists get very exorcised over labs testing various cosmetic products on animals.  But for all their protesting, safety must be proved before marketing, and that generally means using animals in order to prove that the product or its ingredient are fit for human consumption.

Based on an animal welfare analysis, cosmetic testing would seem to have the lowest urgency.  I mean, who needs the new color of lipstick or perfume scent? Perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, L’Oreal is funding research into a sophisticated computer programs that could—hopefully—make animal testing of new cosmetic products obsolete. From the San Francisco Chronicle story:

The $1.2 million dollars from L’Oreal will allow the EPA to continue to  calibrate a computer model that tests how toxic certain chemicals are, said  David Dix, deputy director of the EPA’s National Center for Computational  Toxicology. “Using state-of-the art methods, we hope to show that products can be proven  safe for the consumer without the use of animals,” said Jared Blumenfeld,  regional EPA administrator. The system, called ToxCast, uses complex mathematical algorithms and computer  testing to determine if a particular product could cause harm to humans. But researchers must use earlier results of animal testing to confirm that  the computer-aided testing is accurate, said Monica Linnenbrink, an EPA  spokeswoman. L’Oreal has agreed to provide the EPA with results of animal testing for 20  chemicals – yet to be determined – that can be used by EPA scientists to  calibrate their animal-free method.

I sure hope this experiment succeeds and good on L’Oreal for trying.  But the crucial bottom line remains human safety.  The other option is to stop developing new cosmetics and ingredients.  That seems to be the course chosen by the EU, which has already banned animal testing of cosmetics and will outlaw the sale of all cosmetics in which ingredients were tested on animals anywhere in the world, starting in 2013.

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…